The following information is a summary of the department's findings
and contains excerpts from other public documents relevant to this
case.

Factual Basis of the Allegations — What the Charging Party Alleged

A female police officer employed by the City of North Branch, the charging
party alleged that the Chief of Police, who was her supervisor, sexually
harassed her, and subjected her to reprisal after she complained about
the harassment. The charging party alleged specifically that:

On several
occasions, her supervisor touched her inappropriately, including
putting his arms around her, touching her neck and shoulders, and
rubbing his body against hers in a sexual manner. He made a reference
to her breasts and suggested she should be wearing a protective
vest, and inquired about her private life;

After the charging party filed a formal complaint
of sexual harassment with the City Administrator on January 31,
2008, her supervisor began telling her previous employer, a county
sheriff's office, that she was "suing the pants off him." She
was also told by a police sergeant that deputies from two counties
might be reluctant to back her up on calls because she was a "head
hunter" who
was "out to sue everyone." She informed the City Administrator
that her supervisor was spreading rumors about her, but was told
that the city could not put a "gag order" on her supervisor,
and that he was free to talk about her complaint;

In April of 2008, the
charging party was told that an investigation into her complaint
had been completed, and that her supervisor had been given two days
unpaid suspension and a written reprimand to be kept in his personnel
file. In the summer of 2008, she learned that he had received his
two days' pay, and the reprimand had been removed from his file.

After she filed
her complaint of sexual harassment, she was denied training opportunities
that were available to other officers. She was also denied overtime
pay, holiday pay and reimbursement for mileage; other officers continued
to receive these benefits.

In December 2008, her supervisor gave her
a performance review that contained accusations of lateness and
other scheduling issues that had never been mentioned prior to the
review.

Summary of the Commissioner's Memorandum
— What the Department's Investigation Found

In answering the charge, the city denied that it had discriminated against
the charging party in any way. In its investigation, the Department
of Human Rights determined that there was insufficient evidence to support
the charging party's claim of sexual harassment. There was insufficient
evidence to support her allegations that her supervisor had engaged
in inappropriate touching. While there was some evidence to indicate
the use of double entendre humor, there was insufficient evidence to
indicate the use of such humor was significantly intimidating, hostile
or offensive, such that it interfered with the charging party's employment.

"Not
all conduct reasonable people consider offensive amounts to illegal
discrimination," the department stated, in finding "no probable
cause" with respect to her sexual harassment claim. "The courts
have found that offensive conduct relating to protected class status
does not rise to the level of prohibited discrimination unless that
conduct or communication is so severe or pervasive that it has the purpose
or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's employment,
or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive employment environment," the
department stated.

However, the department found probable cause to believe
that the Respondent had violated the Human Rights Act by engaging in
reprisal after the charging party complained of sexual harassment. There
was sufficient evidence to indicate that the charging party had experienced
a series of adverse employment actions including the denial of her ability
to take a squad car home after a shift, the denial of the use of a personal
vehicle or a squad car to attend out-of-town trainings, and other policies
that negatively impacted her employment, or would have dissuaded a reasonable
person from pursuing a claim of discrimination. The respondent's stated
reasons for these adverse employment actions were "pretextually
false," the department determined. "The greater weight of
evidence in this matter supports the conclusion that the respondent's
actions were reprisal motivated by the charging party's protected activity," the
department concluded.

Terms of Settlement

In a settlement negotiated with the Department of Human Rights, the City
of North Branch agreed:

That the respondents and the League of Minnesota
Cities Insurance Trust will pay the charging party and her attorney
$60,000;

To rescind a two-day suspension the charging party had
received on or about June 8, 2009, and to remove a copy of the suspension
and all documents related to it from her personnel file;

To provide city
employees with at least one hour of training on the fair employment
provisions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, including, specifically,
the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex and the prohibition
of reprisal/retaliation;

That the city will develop and adopt a written
policy addressing its obligations under the MHRA, or if such a policy
exists, the respondent city will review and revise its policy as
needed to ensure compliance with the MHRA. The respondents deny
that they violated the Minnesota Human Right Act (MHRA), and the
settlement of this case does not constitute an admission of any
liability of violating the MHRA or any other law, or of any wrongdoing.

The Department of Human Rights publishes information about selected cases
and settlement agreements, including its "Case of the Month," as
part of its mandate under the Human Rights Act to "educate to eliminate" discrimination.
Settlement agreements do not constitute an admission of any liability,
an admission of a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act or any
other law, or an admission of wrongdoing by the respondents.